Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
At times like this...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 74957591" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>Well, no. Not making an assumption of God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence) is not assuming that there is no God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence), it is simply acknowledging that we can only make inferential models using the data that is available. </p><p></p><p>If there was some evidential basis for interpreting the data differently (e.g. under a God assumption), then the data could be interpreted differently. Until then, it seems entirely reasonable not to make assumptions about hypothetical contributions for which we have no evidence, whether it's an ill-defined God hypothesis or the hypothesis that white mice are hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who created the Earth in search of the ultimate question.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 74957591, member: 241055"] Well, no. Not making an assumption of God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence) is not assuming that there is no God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence), it is simply acknowledging that we can only make inferential models using the data that is available. If there was some evidential basis for interpreting the data differently (e.g. under a God assumption), then the data could be interpreted differently. Until then, it seems entirely reasonable not to make assumptions about hypothetical contributions for which we have no evidence, whether it's an ill-defined God hypothesis or the hypothesis that white mice are hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who created the Earth in search of the ultimate question. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
At times like this...
Top
Bottom